Organizational structure can be described as the framework in which an organization operates. There are three main types of organizational structure: functional, divisional and matrix structure.
A functional structure is set up so that each portion of the organization is grouped according to its purpose. In this type of organization, for example, there may be a marketing department, a sales department and a production department. The functional structure works very well for small businesses in which each department can rely on the talent and knowledge of its workers and support itself. However, one of the drawbacks to a functional structure is that the coordination and communication between departments can be restricted by the organizational boundaries of having the various departments working separately.
A divisional structure typically is used in larger companies that operate in a wide geographic area or that have separate smaller organizations within the umbrella group to cover different types of products or market areas. For example, the now-defunct Tecumseh Products Company was organized divisionally–with a small engine division, a compressor division, a parts division and divisions for each geographic area to handle specific needs. The benefit of this structure is that requirements can be met rapidly and more specifically; however, communication is inhibited because employees in different divisions are not working together. Divisional structure is costly because of its size and scope. Small businesses can use a divisional structure on a smaller scale, having different offices in different parts of the city, for example, or assigning different sales teams to handle different geographic areas.
A matrix structure is a hybrid of divisional and functional structure. Typically used in large multinational companies, the matrix structure allows for the benefits of functional and divisional structures to exist in one organization. This can create power struggles because most areas of the company will have a dual management–a functional manager and a product or divisional manager working at the same level and covering some of the same managerial territory.
Organizational structure is closely related to culture. Culture refers to the deep-seated beliefs, values and norms that represent the unique character of an organization and also the shared goals and visions for the people in the organization. Organizational structure and culture are difficult to separate as they are intertwined and dependent on each other. Arguably, Greenscape operates a matrix structure.
Organizational structure can be described as the framework in which an organization operates. How its tasks are delegated and its leadership structure i.e. its lines of authority and communication. ‘Organization structure determines how information flows between different levels of management and employees. How roles, power and duties are delegated controlled and coordinated.” The structure an organization chooses is dependent on its objectives and the strategy employed to achieve them. Pre-globalization most organizations had a centralized structure where the power was concentrated at the top. With globalization we has seen a shift in many organizations to a more decentralized structure where decision making is more participative and decision making is power is shared and more autonomy is given to divisions and departments. The motivation of the individual’s goals and aspirations, needs met in one, and not the organization: what drives us in life and in business in particular, managerial tasks to recognize the individual motivations and management tools are linked to organizational goals with individual can move resources to achieve organizational goals.
Lawler (1981) argue that the factors determining the balance motivation the efforts and expectations concerning performance relationship and the perceived attractiveness of reward. These factors are simply related links to each other, where each link is irrelevant. If an employee receives a job, which is calculated as a challenge to your skills, and be able to complete this task successfully with very nice rewarded, so trying to maximize the performance. If, however, the challenges we face are too big or too small, it will not sufficiently able to feel, or to solve the problem for the reward is not attractive enough, and it will not be effective enough. You’ll be motivated and do not feel the job is important it is not going to make an effort to get the best out of the employee.
Leadership is the backbone for the success of an organization. Normally there are four types of leadership styles, which are Autocratic, Participative, Delegative and Free Reign. These leadership styles have different effectiveness in different circumstances.
Differences and similarities between the leadership styles of Max Worthy and Brenda Hogan
We can argue that Max Worthy was operating in a free reign/autocratic leadership styles where everyone had to mind its own business. Brenda Hogan was a manager using a participative management approach. The participative approach will promote integrity, great observation skills and high emotional intelligence. It also promotes openness to effective communication. Hogan wanted to involve everyone in taking part at the formulation of decisions that affected them. She created the environment for the staff to learn from each other and acquire new skills, especially managerial. In contrast, Max Worthy dictated what needed to be done to staff from a distant office. Employees became accustomed to his practices and were reluctant to adopt the new approach from Hogan. Hogan leadership style can inspire her entire team to achieve excellence by example. Her hard work and caring nature set an example for all her coworkers.
Management takes place within a structured organisational setting with prescribed roles. It is directed towards the achievement of aims and objectives through influencing the efforts of others. Below is a discussion of three well known management theories.
Classical management theory:
It puts emphasis on structure and prescriptive what is good for firms. One of the advantages of the classical management structure is a clear organizational structure with distinct management levels. Each management group has its own objectives and responsibilities as there is division of labour. Projects are broken down into smaller tasks that are easy to complete and employees’ responsibilities are clearly defined. This approach allows workers to specialize in one specific area and leads to increased productivity. Employees are motivated by monetary rewards (‘a fair day pay for a fair day work’). The leadership style is autocratic. Managers direct the employees and all decisions are made at the top level and communicated down. This is the case for the management style adopted by Max Worthy.
Human Relations Theories:
Classical theorists were concerned with structure and mechanics of organizations. But human relation theorists were concerned with the human factors at work. This was undoubtedly the management style adopted by Brenda Hogan. The human relations theory focus is on motivation, group motivation and effective leadership. At the heart of this theory is the relationship between employer and employee. According to the Human relation theory people’s needs are decisive factors in achieving an organisation’s objectives. Individuals cannot be treated in isolation, but function with group members.
From the late 1950s, a new approach to organisation theory was developed which became known as contingency theory. According to this theory, there is no one best way to structure an organisation. When deciding on how it should be structured, how it should be organized and how it should be managed, an organisation will face a range of choices. Successful organisations adopt appropriate structures in response to a number of variables, or contingencies, which influence both the needs of the organisation and how it works. Theorists in favour of the contingency approach recommend a diagnosis of people/ task/ technology/environment – then suggest the development of appropriate solutions (e.g. Pugh).